Inkless Wells

Paul Wells on all the latest out of Ottawa—along with the occasional post about jazz. Follow Paul on Twitter: @InklessPW
He also offers his thoughtful perspective of Stephen Harper’s last 10 years in his recent eBook, The Harper Decade.

Categories: Capital Read, Inkless Wells

The Coderre-Ignatieff two-step

by Paul Wells on Thursday, September 24, 2009 8:07pm - 48 Comments

Martin Cauchon has been offered the Liberal nomination in Jeanne-Le Ber, which was contested in 2008 (I was at the nomination meeting. It was very entertaining), on a platter, by Michael Ignatieff at Denis Coderre’s recommendation. Renewal being, apparently, a higher priority for the Liberal party in the northern part of downtown Montreal than it is in the western part.

I suppose they could simply have contested nomination meetings. But that would be wrong.

UPDATE: More. Sheila Gervais, who here criticizes Ignatieff’s eminently criticism-worthy wave of candidate appointments, supported Bob Rae for the Liberal leadership in 2006 and was national director of the party when Jean Chrétien appointed several candidates, but I offer that context only to anticipate obvious rebuttals to the point she’s making, which remains valid.

UPDATER: The Gazette seems to believe Liza Frulla was the Liberal in Jeanne-Le Ber in 2008. She wasn’t.

Tags: cha-cha-cha, consistency, denis coderre, Martin Cauchon

More by Paul Wells

http://intensedebate.com/people/madeyoulook madeyoulook

Why renew the western part? Any idiot can win as a Liberal there, so why change that if you're Ignatieff?

http://intensedebate.com/people/Inkless Inkless

Not that far west. More south-central, where the population is predominantly francophone and not prosperous. The Liberals have lost in Jeanne-Le Ber two elections running.

http://intensedebate.com/people/madeyoulook madeyoulook

Ah. Thanks.

Dot

Cauchon celebrates after meeting Ignatieff off camera, in between commercials:

[youtube 6UeCRY1wciA http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6UeCRY1wciA youtube]
http://intensedebate.com/people/TwoYen TwoYen

Why would Michael Ignatieff want contested nominations? He didn't win the leadership in a contested event. He probably thinks its normal to appoint MPs.
http://www.intensedebate.com/people/TwoYen TwoYen

Why would Michael Ignatieff want contested nominations? He didn't win the leadership in a contested event. He probably thinks it's normal to appoint MPs.

http://intensedebate.com/people/SeanStok SeanStok

meow.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Inkless Inkless

Sheila Gervais's point, in fact.

http://intensedebate.com/people/SeanStok SeanStok

Yes, but he's not doing anything different than prior leaders, so it's a bit of a creation to suggest that there's suddenly a culture of appointing that has taken root in the Liberal party.

http://intensedebate.com/people/SeanStok SeanStok

Which doesn't mean I like the practice one bit. I just think the whole 'Iggy was appointed so now he's an appointing junkie" theme is a bit much.

http://intensedebate.com/people/madeyoulook madeyoulook

And yet, if a leader / party wants cabinet-ready "star candidates" to make it to the House, there does need to be some mechanism for these stars to actually make it to the House. So they get dumped in safe ridings, often to the chagrin of the locals in the riding association who don't get to enjoy the sport of a bare-knuckled nomination process. Whether we like the practice or not, I don't see how this "broken" piece of democracy gets fixed anytime soon.

http://intensedebate.com/people/SisyphusThis SisyphusThis

Trudeau , Marchand , Pelletier …… sends shivers up and down your spine.

Or maybe your leg.

Dot

Wiseguy!
http://intensedebate.com/people/TwoYen TwoYen

Yeah, I was president of my university Liberal club at the time. We were all giddy with excitement over Marchand. Trudeau was just some professor that we'd never heard of. Little did we know….
http://www.intensedebate.com/people/TwoYen TwoYen

"Trudeau , Marchand , Pelletier …… sends shivers up and down your spine."

Yeah, I was president of my university Liberal club at the time. We were all giddy with excitement over Marchand. Trudeau was just some professor that we'd never heard of. Little did we know….

Irritable Canadian

I'm pretty sure that the Fathers of Confederation would be pretty disgusted with what's become of "Canadian Democracy" on all sides of the political spectrum. Sadly, Canada long ago lost any sort of capital "S" Statesmen with gravitas and intelligence… instead, we're saddled with bitter partisans like Harper, carpetbaggers like Ignatieff and intellectual pygmies like Coderre and Poilievre. Is it any wonder why people don't want to vote any more? That dull roar you hear, is the sound of millions of irritated Canadians groaning in agony at the prospect of being governed by any of these clowns.

hosertohoosier

The fathers of confederation lived in a democracy where neither women, most poor people, nor various minorities could vote. There was no anonymous ballot, and voters would often be deterred from voting by men with sticks. Party leaders were determined by caucus votes, not conventions. Bribery of the electorate, particularly with alcohol was common. The system was rife with patronage too – people were appointed to public jobs because they were cronies of somebody. The Prime Minister of the day was a raging alcoholic who, at least once, vomited in parliament. As for carpet-bagging, he ran in no fewer than 5 different ridings in 3 different provinces. Part of the reason he ran in BC one of those times, was to avoid flack for a scandal wherein an inferior bid to build the CPR was accepted in exchange for a sizeable loan to John A's re-election campaign.

But yeah, I'm sure the founders are turning in their graves.

http://intensedebate.com/people/tigerinexil1428 tigerinexile

Wasn't there a campaign quote by Sir John A. sometime in the 1870s about skinning "the Grit rat" and sending its hide to Paris to be made into gloves?

The Americans have the shining rhetoric from their founders, not Canadians. On the other hand, their founders held slaves, whereas Upper Canada got rid of slavery in 1793 and the Empire in 1833.

***

Oh, here's an even more fun one. The Langevin Block is named after Sir John A's public works minister, Sir Hector-Louis Langevin.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hector-Louis_Langevi…

Langevin was one of the big wheels from Quebec. He was turfed from politics over the Pacific Scandal. Then he came back in 1878, with the new Tory government. He was then turfed from cabinet again over the McGreevy-Langevin Scandal in 1891, and left politics in 1896. The latter scandal makes the Adscam people look like pikers.

McGreevy was expelled from Parliament and jailed. Once he was released from jail, he immediately was re-elected to Parliament.

Canadian history is awesome.
http://intensedebate.com/people/tigerinexil1428 tigerinexile

Wasn't there a campaign quote by Sir John A. sometime in the 1870s about skinning "the Grit rat" and sending its hide to Paris to be made into gloves?

The Americans have the shining rhetoric from their founders, not Canadians. On the other hand, their founders held slaves, whereas Upper Canada got rid of slavery in 1793 and the Empire in 1833.

***

Oh, here's an even more fun one. The Langevin Block is named after Sir John A's public works minister, Sir Hector-Louis Langevin.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hector-Louis_Langevi…

Langevin was one of the big wheels from Quebec. He was turfed from politics over the Pacific Scandal. Then he came back in 1878, with the new Tory government. He was then turfed from cabinet again over the McGreevy-Langevin Scandal in 1891, and left politics in 1896. The latter scandal makes the Adscam people look like pikers.

McGreevy was expelled from Parliament and jailed. Once he was released from jail, he immediately was re-elected to Parliament.

Canadian history is awesome.
Irritable Canadian

Ah, then perhaps the whole premise of my earlier should have been not that we lack the statesmen we did before, but that Canada perhaps never possessed any to begin with.

hosertohoosier

Maybe. I am of the view that bad or good statesmanship doesn't make much of a difference. Some of our best regarded PM's were drunken sleazebags (John A), weirdo loners (King), lecherous assholes (Trudeau) and thuggish crooks (Chretien). Some of our worst PM's were stand-up guys. Alexander Mackenzie and Joe Clark come to mind. While Pearson is well regarded and a nice guy, like Harper he was unable to win a majority government (his electoral record includes… the worst Liberal result ever in '58, lost again in '62, won a minority in '63 and another minority in '65). And any list of leaders of the opposition would include many upstanding losers – Stephane Dion, Preston Manning and Robert Stanfield were men of high integrity and low electability.
Clearly, our system of government produces assholes.

Irritable Canadian

And the intellectual pygmy comment goes triple for Layton — combined with hypocritical opportunist.
Sheila Gervais

“…but I offer that context only to anticipate obvious rebuttals to the point she’s making, which remains valid.”

I think I am supposed to appreciate this somehow, but I’m not sure…I think the comma helps

Irritable Canadian

You're doing the right thing speaking out Sheila — but did you do the same thing when PM Chretien was around? If not, why not?

Sheila Gervais

It's an irritating thing I do, but yup, I did. And before that and after that too. Sometimes, I even agreed with the Party leadership.

Irritable Canadian

Then I say well done to you Sheila — I wish there was more like you.

Anon

Why not appoint? If you have a good person who wants to serve, why make him/her go through the cattle call of a contested nomination?

jarrid

Yeah. same thing with the leader of the party, if you have God's gift to politics and he wants to serve, why make him go through a leadership convention, it's such a hassle, and heck, he might lose.

The new LIberal politics, grassroots democracy is a waste of time. A centralized appointment process where who has the better connections wins out is more efficient. Just ask Martin Cauchon.

an online reader

Its fun watching a slew of candidate debates during the last two elections . Conservative hopefulls all have identical talking points . Group think or central control at PMO ?

jarrid

Backroom boys appointing someone the leader of the Liberal Party, short-circuiting a leadership contest hasn't been done in this country since the 1900's. Democracy has its shortcomings, to be sure, but it's still the best political system. The Liberals retro-grade actions in short-circuiting democratic ways will come back to haunt them, nay has come back to haunt them.

jarrid

Sheila Gervais vs. Anon/Ti-G*y on how to do politics. A mismatch if there ever was one.

A reader

I do not even accept the premise that permitting so-called star candidates to by-pass nominations does them any favours at all when it comes to the political realities of the jobs they're about to step into. Stéphane Dion was allowed to enter politics through this route. Ultimately, it meant he had absolutely no idea how the political process really worked or how to manage it. No wonder he appointed Jocelyn Coulon and thought it would work.

Facing nomination contests and winning difficult ridings are great testing grounds and learning experiences that help a prospective cabinet minister develop the good listening skills that they'll need later on when they need to sell difficult ideas. I don't know why everyone thinks allowing so-called "stars" to bypass this training ground is so good for them or for democracy in our country.

CAPS

Well, M. Dion was a very strong Minister.

The other thing about M. DIon is that he has a political education in reverse. He was appointed to cabinet (which is completely allowed but not usual in our system) and then he was elected to his seat in the Commons and then in 2005 he had to fight for his nomination when Jean Lapierre tried a hostile reverse takeover.

Jocelyn Coulon would have been an excellent addition to the House but due to a number of factors (including his appointment) he lost and now we have Thomas Mulcair instead.

Mike B

At least Sheila Gervais is criticizing the party as Sheila Gervais, and not as 'a senior Liberal speaking on condition of anonymity'. So there's progress.
Beeg

Northern part of downtown? Western? What?
hosertohoosier

If I were Cauchon I would take the deal. Jean-Le Ber is a better seat than Outremont to run in, despite Outremont being Cauchon's old riding. The Liberals only lost there by 2% in 2008. They lost in Outremont by 6 points. Moreover, practically every dipper in Montreal (heck, every Dipper in Quebec) will be fighting to keep Mulcair's seat. The NDP is down nationally, but a good ground game can buck local trends. Look at the Tories in Quebec city – the party lost a fifth of its support but retained all but one Quebec seat. Duceppe has dozens of seats in Quebec he needs to defend (seats where he does not face well-known former cabinet ministers).
Derek

I agree. Any Liberal running in Jeanne LeBer ought to be able to win pretty easily assuming even the slightest Liberal dead cat bounce in Quebec. It is a riding with a lot of non-francophones and the fact that its held by the BQ at all is a bit of a fluke. As far as i know the BQ MP there is a total nobody. If Cauchon runs there, he is almost guaranteed to win. In Outremont, he would be up against Mulcair who is very high profile and has a lot of personal support – and at best it would be a tossup.
http://intensedebate.com/people/OntarioTown OntarioTown

Last night on CBC's "At Issue" – Chantel Herbert laughs it off. Coyne looked shocked when she said that you could fit the whole group in a telephone booth – much ado about nothing.
Wascally Wabbit

Well done Sheila Gervais.
Frankly, for a party that has been divided for at least six years – that pulled together because of supreme sacrifices by the likes of Bob Rae and Dominic Leblanc – that made the right noises about listening to the grassroots and party democracy in the leadup to Vancouver in May – but then IMO – did not deliver – it has been a demostration of the height of arrogance and ultimately stupidity by the close group surrounding Mr. Ignatieff to play such games.
They risk – not only the party renewal failing – they risk a chance for Canada to get out from under heel…
Riley Hennessey

I love the audacity of leaders of all parties to "offer up" ridings like this. Gee, ya think the constituents care about who would represent them?

Instead, it's pick one, any one! Doesn't this reinforce the "Just visiting" attach ads?
http://intensedebate.com/people/SeanStok SeanStok

"Doesn't this reinforce the "Just visiting" attach ads?"

Um, that'd be a no. Except for complete con-bots, for whom Iggy's choice of breakfast cereal would likely reinforce the Just Visiting ads.

Riley Hennessey

Really? You don't see how parachuting a candidate into a riding out of pressure could reinforce the "just visiting" theme?

I know Harper does it, Chretien did it, and Martin did it all too. It's not just Iggy… but right here today, in the news this week, the story is Iggy parachutes two candidates into MTL ridings without consulting actual residents.

This is what has bothered me for years about the Liberal Party. The second anyone says "hey wait a minute, do you think this makes sense or looks good?" You are called out as a con-bot or anti-Liberal.

http://intensedebate.com/people/SeanStok SeanStok

It's a long walk from being criticial of the appointments – I am of any and all, regardless of party – and connecting it to the Just Visiting theme.

The fact that the practice is common doesn't necessarily excuse Iggy (though Hebert argued last night that it's a practical necessity in some Quebec ridings). But it does make any attempts to connect it to a Just Visiting narrative as questionable to all but those who are predisposed to hammer the talking points.

That said, I'm always open to persuasion, so explain to me how appointments are part of the Just Visiting critique, given that meddling with riding nominations has occurred with equal frequency under the watch of leaders who haven't spent extensive time outside the country.

http://intensedebate.com/people/OntarioTown OntarioTown

I smell a dirtly little Rae game here. Ah, guess what – Rae, Gervais, Chretien – are NOT the leaders of the party.

In fact, their playing the Chretien/Martin game again – enough already.

And, who does Cauchon think he is anyway? If he truly wants to get back into public service – for the good of the country – he'd also quit playing these old games.
E.B.

What would work better?

If the party wants a 'star candidate' in a riding, it would be far better for the party to offer up a candidate with their 'ringing endorsement' to the local riding. The 'star candidate' should stand for the candidate election and convince the local riding that he/she is the right person for the job.

If the 'star candidate' can't win the an election by the local riding association, he/she really probably shouldn't run in a general election. It would also give them some preliminary experience in how to campaign and win people's hearts and minds, before facing the general electorate.

However, I'm sure we all know that there are some 'star candidates', who will enter politics only if it is offered up on a silver platter.

Sheila Gervais

I agree. (It's a tad more complicated than that, but that is a side bar to this discussion.) The riding will make mistakes some times. But that's democracy.

http://www.intensedebate.com/people/Gaunilon Gaunilon

Why don't we just abandon elections altogether and have our Overlords (Overladies?) appoint women to all the seats in Parliament. Renewal, plus redress of historical imbalances! Clearly if women can't win at least 50% of the nominations by election then democracy must have a systemic bias.
http://intensedebate.com/people/SeanStok SeanStok

I think one of the points Gervais argues is that while ostensibly this is about getting women elected, it's really a smokescreen for other nonsense. If true, I'd have to agree with her that it's fairly reprehensible.